Abstract
Discussions of practice, particularly those concerned with learning, tend to focus more upon the sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects of practice activity than on the actual materiality of practice. This chapter suggests theoretical resources that offer constructs and approaches to help trace material dimensions of practice and, in particular, the materiality of learning in practice. Three theoretical perspectives have been selected that have become prevalent in learning research: cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), actor-network theory (ANT) and complexity theory. In their own ways, they help to illuminate issues of practice that are sometimes silent in practice-based assertions: different kinds of practice, the actual processes of participation in practices and the diverse ways in which practices become reconfigured. A comparative approach is used to examine these three conceptual framings to explore their diverse contributions to analyzing materiality in practice. The three perspectives bear some similarities in their conceptualization of knowledge and capabilities as emerging in interconnections between heterogeneous things, human and non-human. Yet, each illuminates very different facets of the material that can afford important understandings: about how subjectivities are produced in practices, how knowledge circulates and sediments into formations of power and how practices are configured and reconfigured. Each also signals, in different ways, what generative possibilities may exist for helping people to engage in desirable practices or to reconfigure problematic practices.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.
Callon, M. (2005). Why virtualism paves the way to political impotence: A reply to Daniel Miller’s critique of The Laws of the Markets. Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter, 6(2), 3–20.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2008). The death and life of great educational ideas: Why we might want to avoid a critical complexity theory. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 6(1), 163–176.
Davis, B., Sumara, D. J., & Kuce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2009). Working relationally at organisational boundaries: Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for children’s wellbeing. London: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–146.
EPAT. (2008). Special issue: Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 1–245.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, E. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches in educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). To transfer is to transform: The circulation of safety knowledge. Organization, 7(2), 329–348.
Haggis, T. (2009). Beyond ‘mutual constitution’: Looking at learning and context from the perspective of complexity theory. In R. Edwards, G. Biesta, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching: Communities, activities and networks. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15–25). Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review.
Latour, B. (2005). Re-assembling the social – An introduction to Actor Network Theory. London: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.
McMurtry, A. (2007). Complexity science and the education of interdisciplinary health teams. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 170–195.
Miettinen, R., Lehenkari, J., & Tuunainen, J. (2008). Learning and network collaboration in product development: How things work for human use. Management Learning, 39(2), 203–219.
Nespor, J. (2002). Networks and contexts of reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 365–382.
Osberg, D. C., & Biesta, G. J. J. (Eds.). (2010). Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam: Sense.
Osberg, D., Biesta, G. J. J., & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: Complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 213–227.
Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: Free Press.
Sawchuk, P. (2003). Adult learning, technology, and working class life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sawchuk, P., Duarte, N., & Elhammoumi, M. (Eds.). (2005). Critical perspectives on activity: Explorations across education, work and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London/New York: Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fenwick, T. (2012). Matterings of Knowing and Doing: Sociomaterial Approaches to Understanding Practice. In: Hager, P., Lee, A., Reich, A. (eds) Practice, Learning and Change. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4774-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4774-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4773-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4774-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)